3 ms·
I mean he was getting crap for even suggesting trump had a chance. NYT had Hillary at like 99%
by spookthesunset 3y ago
I mean he was getting crap for even suggesting trump had a chance. NYT had Hillary at like 99%
- jjtheblunt 3y agobut NYT has, at times, been straight propaganda (like other obvious news sites for other propaganda), which i guess is your point.
- AtlasBarfed 3y agofor whom?
- jjtheblunt 3y agoWell NYT themselves announced an editorial board overhaul a year or two ago because they said they had become too “left”, perhaps like Fox and WSJ were so far right? But now I’m not sure, since i subscribe and it seems balanced.
- robertoandred 3y ago1% isn’t a chance?
- dllthomas 3y ago1% is a chance, but a proper scoring rule will penalize you more for being wrong about something you gave 1% than about something you gave 30%.
- bvinc 3y agoI don’t remember NYT. But I recall the other major poll site Real Clear Politics had an election map with a percentage chance for each state and they had Hillary at 99%. Their mistake was that they treated each state as an independent event. Treating each state as a separate biased coin toss leads you to put Hillary at 99%. Nate knew that these are not independent events and if republicans are being under polled in one state, it is more likely they’re being under polled in all of the states.